Describe a loopclub loop

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation, describes the accepted input forms (link or raw bigints), and states the output shape. It doesn't cover error cases or parameter interactions, but for a simple read tool this is solid context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the two usage scenarios, which is ideal structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description provides enough: it explains inputs, output format, and use cases. The only minor gap is not specifying behavior when no parameters are provided or when inputs conflict, but that's non-critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description largely restates that information ('?jam= link (or raw pattern/synthData bigints)') without adding new semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Read a loop back') and resource (loop), and makes the contrast with the sibling build_loop explicit ('verify what you just built'). It also specifies the return format (per-track summary plus ASCII grid), so an agent can distinguish it instantly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives two clear use cases: inspect a pasted loop, or verify a just-built loop. This implies the when and is tied to the sibling, but it does not name alternatives explicitly or state when not to use it, keeping it just below the top score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.